Bois Boycott

[gaz7]

Block e and club disagreements will take a wee bit of give and take I feel from both parties.  The situation with the 14 age group is just total madness. We go to high school at age 11/12 meaning for most down street at lunchtime into the local big town etc and generally more leeway from our parents. This age group want to run about with their pals and we need all support we can get so whoever came up with this idea and whoever followed it through must quite frankly be not right in the head.

[Kmcalpin]

33 minutes ago, wellwell91 said:

Are all other clubs banning fans in this manner.

Not so sure that they are.  

Fair point which needs to be investigated. Maybe someone in the Society already knows or could establish. If other clubs aren't doing the same, then that points to a local issue. 

[well_said]

24 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Is there not a quasi protection racket where all clubs are expected to employ at least one retired polis with the correct funny hand shake?

The Old Firm both employ ex police in security roles. 

I don't think Celtic will be employing anyone with the correct funny handshake.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, wellwell91 said:

You’ve hit the nut on the head. 
Do other clubs our size St Mirren, St Johnstone, Killie, Ross County have similar problems with banning fans in this way ????

Bob Park has far to much power within our club and it is time his power is curtailed and he is made to account for his actions 

If all this is being sanctioned by the board then our club has a serious problem 

Motherwell football club are just the same as any other business, commercial premises, pubs and clubs etc ie they have the legal authority under their terms and conditions, operating policies, code of conduct etc to ban any individual or group of individuals from their premises if they feel their policies have been broken.

So no need to refer to courts etc, so the individuals might not have been convicted but in the eyes of the club their behaviour was unacceptable so action was taken.

There is a simple solution to this, support the club without all of the ultra bullshit and there won't be an issue.

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, gaz7 said:

Block e and club disagreements will take a wee bit of give and take I feel from both parties.  The situation with the 14 age group is just total madness. We go to high school at age 11/12 meaning for most down street at lunchtime into the local big town etc and generally more leeway from our parents. This age group want to run about with their pals and we need all support we can get so whoever came up with this idea and whoever followed it through must quite frankly be not right in the head.

When I spoke to Caldwell about this after the Q&A I pointed out that he would be barring kids in Third Year at High School and he didn't believe me at first so they  obviously haven't looked at it very thoroughly. 

The SLO started up with some hysterical 'what if' scenarios about issues with young fans but didn't seem very happy when I suggested they contact other venues that allow unaccompanied youths such as cinemas or fast food restaurants for advice if they couldn't figure it out themselves. 

[David]

49 minutes ago, Inflato said:

I've no idea how anyone can think that depriving the team of your support, whilst giving those at the root of your grievance a significantly easier day at the office, is a particularly effective protest.

Well, it's got all of us discussing it across two internet forums and on social media, hasn't it? So they've managed to shine a light on an issue that otherwise wouldn't be discussed had they just showed up at the Hearts game as if nothing was wrong.

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, well_said said:

I don't think Celtic will be employing anyone with the correct funny handshake.

Very naive. 

[David]

3 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Motherwell football club are just the same as any other business, commercial premises, pubs and clubs etc ie they have the legal authority under their terms and conditions, operating policies, code of conduct etc to ban any individual or group of individuals from their premises if they feel their policies have been broken.

So no need to refer to courts etc, so the individuals might not have been convicted but in the eyes of the club their behaviour was unacceptable so action was taken.

There is a simple solution to this, support the club without all of the ultra bullshit and there won't be an issue.

The thing is though, if there wasn't evidence to convict, then how does the club know their behaviour was unacceptable? Or are we just giving the powers that be the power to ban anyone they like without scrutiny?

This isn't "any other business", this is a fan-owned football club. Some people may not like it, but they do have to be held accountable to the fans on occasion. Especially when it comes to banning people.

And for the record, anyone caught and convicted by a court of carrying out football-related violence or trouble should face the consequences of their actions. 

However, when there isn't enough evidence to convict, that changes the story. 

Innocent until proven guilty and so forth.

[Spiderpig]

11 minutes ago, well_said said:

I don't think Celtic will be employing anyone with the correct funny handshake.

Wrong, there have been several employees of Celtic onfield and off that would be familiar with said handshakes including one of the famous Lisbon Lions.

[Spiderpig]

4 minutes ago, David said:

The thing is though, if there wasn't evidence to convict, then how does the club know their behaviour was unacceptable? Or are we just giving the powers that be the power to ban anyone they like without scrutiny?

This isn't "any other business", this is a fan-owned football club. Some people may not like it, but they do have to be held accountable to the fans on occasion. Especially when it comes to banning people.

And for the record, anyone caught and convicted by a court of carrying out football-related violence or trouble should face the consequences of their actions. 

However, when there isn't enough evidence to convict, that changes the story. 

Innocent until proven guilty and so forth.

You are missing the point a pub landlord etc does not need proof that you are a convicted criminal to ban you from their pub, all that's required is that you broke the house rules etc in some way and we're identified, same thing is happening at Fir park.

[dennyc]

The threshold for securing a criminal prosecution and the threshold for a Club issuing a banning order will always be different. And that is only common sense and takes into account various factors..... age of the offender, nature of the offence, repeated offending, public interest, cost etc etc. Evidence can exist that justifies exclusion even if it does not lead to a subsequent prosecution. I could quite easily hurl abuse at McMahon and his pals, and believe me of late I have been very tempted. No doubt I would be ejected and banned. Quite rightly so. But I certainly would not be prosecuted.

Not so much at Fir Park, but anybody who attends away matches regularly sees behaviour from Motherwell fans that is unacceptable. Many fans are afraid to comment or intervene for fear of reprisal. What was the phrase used in previous debate on this subject " Snitches get Stitches".  Not just pyro stuff but also abuse of stewards and sometimes fellow fans. You can add objects being thrown on to the pitch, the occasional visit to the pitch area and confrontations with opposition fans before or after games. in previous discussions I detailed incidents I have witnessed first hand, only to be shouted down and told those incidents just did not happen. "Nothing to see here". I expect the same response to this post, from the same folk. 

The Thistle drum incident, which again some say did not happen despite numerous eye witnesses, suggests that matters are escalating despite repeated requests from the Club. Anybody who insists such incidents do not happen is either blind, has an axe to grind or just likes to challenge authority. Maybe all three.

There may well be issues regards Bob Park and other Club officials that need addressed. Hopefully they will be. Discussions certainly need to take place quickly. And many people clearly disagree with attempts that have been taken to address anti social behaviour...in football grounds and beyond. But to use either to justify the actions of what we are told is a minority of the Bois is purely an attempt at deflection. And sorry, but to accuse Park and Read of using the latest incidents as a means of gaining revenge after losing the Barmack vote is just farcical. And to try to justify/play down the situation the office staff found themselves in is disgusting.

Bottom line is that if behaviour does not improve, arrests and bans will continue. Regrettably some less guilty parties may also suffer. I hope not.  We all demanded justice when Celtic and Hibs fans trashed the away end. Not to that extent yet, but is it not hypocritical to excuse our own fans' anti social behaviour?  Like everyone on here I enjoy the atmosphere and colour the Bois bring to our games and openly support their charity initiatives and highlighting of teenage suicide concerns. But sadly unless things change it will not be the good they do which will continue to be the focus.  

Last word on this from me as both sides are clearly entrenched and agreement is not going to happen. How sad is it that, the day after such a fantastic victory and performance, most of the talk is about a group of supporters who have so much to offer if only they were prepared to limit their actions to supporting the club and the community. Then again I can think of one or two or four who just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge how good a performance two players in particular put in. Sad really. On both fronts.

 

[steelboy]

12 minutes ago, dennyc said:

The threshold for securing a criminal prosecution and the threshold for a Club issuing a banning order will always be different. And that is only common sense and takes into account various factors..... age of the offender, nature of the offence, repeated offending, public interest, cost etc etc. Evidence can exist that justifies exclusion even if it does not lead to a subsequent prosecution.  

 

Inside the stadium the club should take the initiative to protect workers and other supporters but I don't see why they would get involved with matters away from the stadium. 

If the Police want a banning order then they should go to court. 

[Onthefringes]

Same posters, same false narrative.

For those who understand no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t no explanation will suffice.

[Spiderpig]

26 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Same posters, same false narrative.

For those who understand no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t no explanation will suffice.

What's false about behave and follow the rules and there won't be an issue, the vast majority of fans manage it, or is Block E a special case, enlighten us with your wisdom oh wise one.

[well_said]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

Wrong, there have been several employees of Celtic onfield and off that would be familiar with said handshakes including one of the famous Lisbon Lions.

Will be employing is different than having employed in the past. Celtic are a vastly more  bigoted club now than they were in the sixties and seventies . 

[texanwellfan]

Not knowing all the facts but looking at the current situation my suggestion would be that representation from MFC (including WS) sit down with Block E representation, not trying to resolve or apportion blame on what has gone before but rather wipe the slate clean and set forth the path forward.  
  Any bans are lifted but MFC clearly explain what is not acceptable behavior going forward. It is also made clear what the consequences are if anyone displays any of the aforementioned unacceptable behavior. 
   If there is any dispute regarding what MFC deem as unacceptable behavior then it seems fair that MFC should back that up with the reason(s) why any activity is deemed as unacceptable. There could still be some disagreement regarding the reasoning behind a particular item so perhaps that’s where the WS can help mediate? I have no issue in MFC standing behind decisions with valid reasons to back them up but “because we say so” is not a valid reason. 
I think everyone wants the atmosphere that they bring but at the same time they have to realize that MFC can be held responsible for the behavior of the fans and also held accountable for the safety of the fans and hence need to do what they have to, in order to meet their responsibilities. 
  Both sides need to show some empathy and common sense and hopefully we can move forward. No one wants to see supporters boycotting games. 

[steelboy]

18 minutes ago, well_said said:

Will be employing is different than having employed in the past. Celtic are a vastly more  bigoted club now than they were in the sixties and seventies . 

Their boardroom is full of Lords and Knighthoods. The Plastic Paddy stuff is branding for dafties. 

[wellgirl]

4 hours ago, gaz7 said:

Block e and club disagreements will take a wee bit of give and take I feel from both parties.  The situation with the 14 age group is just total madness. We go to high school at age 11/12 meaning for most down street at lunchtime into the local big town etc and generally more leeway from our parents. This age group want to run about with their pals and we need all support we can get so whoever came up with this idea and whoever followed it through must quite frankly be not right in the head.

I assume it's an SFA ruling. I assume the way it works at Motherwell and some other clubs is that if you are under 14 you have to be accompanied by an adult but if you are 14 or over you can go to a game alone - the issue seems to be when 14 year olds have bought tickets and have been refused entry because they can't show proof of age. 

Some UK clubs don't allow under 16s and over 14s to buy a ticket unless there's an adult ticket bought at the same time. 

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

What's false about behave and follow the rules and there won't be an issue, the vast majority of fans manage it, or is Block E a special case, enlighten us with your wisdom oh wise one.

How very apt.

Where in your narrative does the passing of identity and personal information to Police Scotland by a club employee of a kid who was proven to be out of the country at the time of an alleged incident?

Unnecessary and not isolated.

Nobody anywhere has stated those involved to be a special case, not ever.

Unsavoury incidents and crowd behaviours have been part and parcel of the game long before I arrived and will be long after I’ve gone. It’s generational and oft fuelled by societal problems. Most just see it for what it is and have grown to know football is a lot safer place to attend given the groups tend to face similar away from matches and it’s a revenue stream for authorities. Unfortunately, some wishing not to be involved get caught up in any event though rare. Let’s not be pretending we haven’t moved on from the dark days of 70’s to mid 80’s.

[grizzlyg]

I think plenty said on all fronts regarding this so all I will input is what we need is WS, club and representatives of Bois to sit down and have an adult discussion and work on how things can be resolved going forward.

COYW

[stv]

41 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

I think plenty said on all fronts regarding this so all I will input is what we need is WS, club and representatives of Bois to sit down and have an adult discussion and work on how things can be resolved going forward.

COYW

You could tell a few jokes at said meeting to break the ice. Non political , non gender based , non sectarian , non religious , non offensive to anyone and after all thats removed , in fact non funny in general.

[grizzlyg]

1 minute ago, stv said:

You could tell a few jokes at said meeting to break the ice. Non political , non gender based , non sectarian , non religious , non offensive to anyone and after all thats removed , in fact non funny in general.

None of my jokes ever contain those categories but yup I am an expert at non funny ones!! 🤪🤪

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

How very apt.

Where in your narrative does the passing of identity and personal information to Police Scotland by a club employee of a kid who was proven to be out of the country at the time of an alleged incident?

Unnecessary and not isolated.

Nobody anywhere has stated those involved to be a special case, not ever.

Unsavoury incidents and crowd behaviours have been part and parcel of the game long before I arrived and will be long after I’ve gone. It’s generational and oft fuelled by societal problems. Most just see it for what it is and have grown to know football is a lot safer place to attend given the groups tend to face similar away from matches and it’s a revenue stream for authorities. Unfortunately, some wishing not to be involved get caught up in any event though rare. Let’s not be pretending we haven’t moved on from the dark days of 70’s to mid 80’s.

a kid who was proven to be out of the country at the time of an alleged incident? OK, so the wrong individual was identified, mistakes happen no issue there.

It’s generational and oft fuelled by societal problems - so all of those allegedly causing issues outside the ground, setting off pyrotechnics and generally acting like arseholes are only doing because their dads done it or they don't have a good life, ok then bullshit

Unfortunately, some wishing not to be involved get caught up in any event - aye  I was just dressed up in my black shorts and block E,  T shirt, with my ski mask / balaclava minding my own business and out for a stroll with my mates, " standard we've done nothing wrong and are the victims" defence then.

You are right though football is light years away from the 70's and 80's and long may it continue. But certain rules need to be followed to ensure it remains a safe place to go to and from.

So support the club, bang your drum, create the tifos and the atmosphere in the ground, without the need for the pyrotechnics, and alleged shenanigans outside the ground and acting like arseholes. 

 

[robsterwood]

Great not having that drum at last game. Atmosphere was great. Albeit without a few fans.

[David]

4 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

You are missing the point a pub landlord etc does not need proof that you are a convicted criminal to ban you from their pub, all that's required is that you broke the house rules etc in some way and we're identified, same thing is happening at Fir park.

What "house rules" have the individuals who have been banned broken then? If someone is responsible for smashing up seats, fighting in the East Stand, or something along those lines, then fine, issue a ban.

I don’t think that has happened, though?

4 hours ago, dennyc said:

The threshold for securing a criminal prosecution and the threshold for a Club issuing a banning order will always be different. And that is only common sense and takes into account various factors..... age of the offender, nature of the offence, repeated offending, public interest, cost etc etc. Evidence can exist that justifies exclusion even if it does not lead to a subsequent prosecution. I could quite easily hurl abuse at McMahon and his pals, and believe me of late I have been very tempted. No doubt I would be ejected and banned. Quite rightly so. But I certainly would not be prosecuted.

Not so much at Fir Park, but anybody who attends away matches regularly sees behaviour from Motherwell fans that is unacceptable. Many fans are afraid to comment or intervene for fear of reprisal. What was the phrase used in previous debate on this subject " Snitches get Stitches".  Not just pyro stuff but also abuse of stewards and sometimes fellow fans. You can add objects being thrown on to the pitch, the occasional visit to the pitch area and confrontations with opposition fans before or after games. in previous discussions I detailed incidents I have witnessed first hand, only to be shouted down and told those incidents just did not happen. "Nothing to see here". I expect the same response to this post, from the same folk. 

The Thistle drum incident, which again some say did not happen despite numerous eye witnesses, suggests that matters are escalating despite repeated requests from the Club. Anybody who insists such incidents do not happen is either blind, has an axe to grind or just likes to challenge authority. Maybe all three.

There may well be issues regards Bob Park and other Club officials that need addressed. Hopefully they will be. Discussions certainly need to take place quickly. And many people clearly disagree with attempts that have been taken to address anti social behaviour...in football grounds and beyond. But to use either to justify the actions of what we are told is a minority of the Bois is purely an attempt at deflection. And sorry, but to accuse Park and Read of using the latest incidents as a means of gaining revenge after losing the Barmack vote is just farcical. And to try to justify/play down the situation the office staff found themselves in is disgusting.

Bottom line is that if behaviour does not improve, arrests and bans will continue. Regrettably some less guilty parties may also suffer. I hope not.  We all demanded justice when Celtic and Hibs fans trashed the away end. Not to that extent yet, but is it not hypocritical to excuse our own fans' anti social behaviour?  Like everyone on here I enjoy the atmosphere and colour the Bois bring to our games and openly support their charity initiatives and highlighting of teenage suicide concerns. But sadly unless things change it will not be the good they do which will continue to be the focus.  

Last word on this from me as both sides are clearly entrenched and agreement is not going to happen. How sad is it that, the day after such a fantastic victory and performance, most of the talk is about a group of supporters who have so much to offer if only they were prepared to limit their actions to supporting the club and the community. Then again I can think of one or two or four who just cannot bring themselves to acknowledge how good a performance two players in particular put in. Sad really. On both fronts.

The issue I have with your analogy, and others have done the same, is that you're using examples where abuse was hurled at someone in the stadium, or some sort of "house rule" was broken in the stadium.

This isn't the case. If you left a Motherwell game and then got accused of getting into a tussle with some wank who supported the opposing team in a pub two miles from the ground, would you accept a ban? A crime that is hardly worthy of a slap on the wrist if you do it on a Saturday night in the town, but deems having you treated like a gun-toting gangster if you happen to have just left a football game?

You’re right, though; a ban should not be based on a criminal conviction. But if that’s the case, why does the club issue such bans based on the police charges? That was precisely why these bans were put in place.

It only makes sense that if the club issues a ban based on police charges, it should then lift the ban and issue an apology when the charges are dismissed.

22 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

a kid who was proven to be out of the country at the time of an alleged incident? OK, so the wrong individual was identified, mistakes happen no issue there.

It’s generational and oft fuelled by societal problems - so all of those allegedly causing issues outside the ground, setting off pyrotechnics and generally acting like arseholes are only doing because their dads done it or they don't have a good life, ok then bullshit

Unfortunately, some wishing not to be involved get caught up in any event - aye  I was just dressed up in my black shorts and block E,  T shirt, with my ski mask / balaclava minding my own business and out for a stroll with my mates, " standard we've done nothing wrong and are the victims" defence then.

You are right though football is light years away from the 70's and 80's and long may it continue. But certain rules need to be followed to ensure it remains a safe place to go to and from.

So support the club, bang your drum, create the tifos and the atmosphere in the ground, without the need for the pyrotechnics, and alleged shenanigans outside the ground and acting like arseholes. 

"Mistakes happen, no issue there."

Well actually, there is an issue there. A pretty fucking big one. There's absolutely no way that should be glossed over. Some poor lad wrongly accused, put through the stress of what that entails and when it's proven he wasn't even in the country it's just a case of "mistakes happen, no issue there?"

Not for me.